Dismissed

Annappa v. Smt Renukamma

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2024RSA/778/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against concurrent findings decreeing partition of a father's self-acquired properties among three children. The court held that a partition between other co-owners cannot deprive a co-owner not party to it, and no evidence of ouster existed, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Annappa Vs Smt Renukamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:23549 RSA No. 778 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.778 OF 2015 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANNAPPA SON OF JOLLANA GOWDAPPA, AGE 44 YEARS, R/O SOORANAGADDE, BHIMANERI VILLAGE, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577427.

¶9

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O NAGAPPA, AGE 49 YEARS, RESIDING OF BELUR, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 423

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT RENUKAMMA W/O DASALI RAMAPPA, AGE 52 YEARS, R/O DIGATEKOPPA, KASABA HOBLI, BELURU POST, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 423

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. NARAYANA K FOR C/R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2015 PASSED IN RA NO. 243/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, SAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.10.2012

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:23549 RSA No. 778 of 2015

¶20

PASSED IN OS NO. 10/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, SAGAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appellants are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

a) "Call for records.

¶24

b) Set-aside the judgment and decree dt: 31.01.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Sagar, in R.A.No.243/2012, and the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Sagar in O.S.No.10/2012 and allow this appeal, in the interest of justice."

¶25

The appellants were defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit in O.S.No.10/2012 filed before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar by respondent No.1 as a plaintiff. The said suit being one for partition and separate possession came to be decreed by the trial court declaring that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to 1/3^rd share each in the suit properties. The appellants herein filed R.A.No.243/2012, wherein the Court of Fast Track at Sagar vide its judgment and decree dated 31.01.2015 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:23549 RSA No. 778 of 2015

¶28

Sri Mahesh R Uppin, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have failed to consider that there is a oral partition which had been effected in between the parties which was evidenced by memorandum of partition dated 06.11.1997 had been executed and therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the appellants herein had become the owners of the said properties. He submits that mutation having been effected in respect of the said properties in the names of the appellants and their mother. The plaintiff being the daughter could not claim any right, title or interest over the suit properties. Hence, seek for partition.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the judgment of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, it is seen that the properties are the subject matter of the suit is not a joint family properties or ancestral properties, but they were self acquired properties of late Jollana Chowdappa - the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3. When the properties are the self acquired properties of the father, then on the expiry of the father, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 would have succeeded to the said properties as co-owners. Even if

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:23549 RSA No. 778 of 2015

¶32

there has been a partition among the two brothers and the mother in the year 1987, the said partition could not bind a co-owner to the properties without the co-owner being a party to the said partition. This aspect has been considered by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the proper perspective and answered. The plaintiff - co-owner of a properties cannot be deprived of her right in the properties by way of a partition deed between the other coowners insofar as her share is concerned. In that view of the matter, no substantial question is made out in the present appeal.

¶33

The perusal of the judgment would also indicate that there is no evidence which had been placed on record by defendant Nos.2 and 3 to show ouster or exclusion from the plaintiff - co-owner from the suit schedule properties. As such, even on that ground, the claim of the appellants is not sustainable.

¶34

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

SSB

Annappa v. Smt Renukamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Annappa v. Smt Renukamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Admar Mutt Kaliya Mardana Krishna Devaru Vs Smt Vishalakshi

Sri H C Rajappa Reddy Vs Viswakarma Welfare Association

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Sri. B R Subramanya

Smt Prema Vs Smt Susheela

Veeranna Vs Zainabi

Smt Kadiramma Vs Sri Narasimhappa